ModernChivalry.org
Miscellaneous => The Sallyport => Topic started by: Aiden of Oreland on 2014-03-04, 01:49:41
-
So me and my brother are having an argument about who would win in a fight, Teutonic knights or Templars. Both one on one and army against army. Personally, I'm sorta in the middle and think both are practically evenly matched. But I don't think the Templars could beat the Teutonics. Who do you think would win?
-
hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose
-
hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose
Plus, they wore black wool in the Middle Eastern sun. That takes some serious stones there. 8)
-
Oh why hospitallers yes but this is between the red cross templars and the black cross teutonics
-
Im going to answer this with my long understanding and study of crusading religious orders. without sarcasm.
1. Templars
2. Hospitallers
3. Teutonics
4. Other
-
Depends, really. The Templars existed as an order only into the early 14th century, while the Teutonic Knights technically still exist as a Catholic order. If you pit late 14th century Templars against Teutonic Knights wearing kits of the Grunwald era, (early 15th century) a clear advantage could be seen from the latter.
-
Well, lets just say when they coincided, before the fall of the templars. I don't want to take out of time period people and make them go at it. This isn't Deadliest Warriors.
-
Lets say 1240?
Teutonics have been around 50 years templars still have over 60 years left.
-
Don't pick a time in your favour!
-
all the time Templars existed was in their favor. Until 1306, look In open war it would be Templar, if in 1 on 1 a hospitaller could(and I mean could not guaranteed) teutonics are extremely skilled warriors. But the Templars were the best. One Templar knight could lead a charge of forty knights and win them the fight. But not only on horse but ground 1 on 1 as well.
They had more wealth and were larger giving them the ability to become the best.
-
William Marshall was a Templar.
-
For one thing they both were equally trained. Templars did have the wealth, but teutonics had more variety in there army. Salah ad-Din said that they were practically identical. Teutonics have been known also to defeat forces much larger than their own.
-
William Marshall was a Templar.
Only at the end of his life. ;)
-
hospitatlers. they kill and can bandage themselves up in the process. you lose
Plus, they wore black wool in the Middle Eastern sun. That takes some serious stones there. 8)
I wear both kits in this fight. However, I agree with this whole-heartedly. Hospitalliers take it. Not sure why I don't wear theirs. ???
-
Who would win? The better one. The luckier one. The one with tactical advantage. The one who got more sleep. The one with his back to the sun. The one with more purpose. The one with no purpose. There's no real answer, except "anyone".
The best I've seen is a quote from martial arts, and that is "The best has their betters". There is a reason that the World Champion at any given thing tends to change frequently (assuming competition). Even the best can be beaten, and by some "not as good".
Even trained exactly the same, same resources, same gear, there are more variables than you could ever figure out with repeated reliability and the exact same outcome every time. If you throw it to army vs army battle, the "superior" army wouldn't lose a single person. Doesn't happen.
So, Templar, Teutonic, Hospitaler, Saracen, Mongol, Samurai, Viking, Pirate, Ninja, Aztec... any one can beat the other on any given day. It's half skill, half chance. Lack of skill will get you killed just as easily as overconfidence in your skills.
-
And to put it into a more recent and personal perspective:
At the Capitol HEMA Open January 26, 2013. I defeated Sir Edward in a longsword duel. A mutual friend of ours named Josh beat me in a following duel, then Sir Edward beat Josh. – Who wins in a duel? The better fighter each and every time! ;)
-
Ok ok ok.
Templar and Hospitaller: unknown outcome
Templar and Teutonic: Its tuff not to have a biased opinion. But im still going to say a Templar would 67 percent chance win.
-
And to put it into a more recent and personal perspective:
At the Capitol HEMA Open January 26, 2013. I defeated Sir Edward in a longsword duel. A mutual friend of ours named Josh beat me in a following duel, then Sir Edward beat Josh. – Who wins in a duel? The better fighter each and every time! ;)
That was great! I love it when it works out that way.
But yes, the thing is, sometimes "the better fighter" is the guy who gets a lucky shot, or knows one move really well and executes it perfectly, or just simply doesn't have the sun in his eyes. Or maybe the other guy is having a bad day. There are so many factors, it's almost impossible to predict the outcome.
-
In real life it is impossible. And for the chance of both warrios following their training step by step, is unlikely.
-
It all comes down to who ate their Wheaties the morning of the battle.
-
Teutonics are luckier than templars so teutonics would win?
-
I think the only real advantage a Templar might have over a Teuton is that the Templar was all-in; not knowing much about the Teutonic Order, I can't really comment on it (but Sir Nathan could, at length) but Templars believed that to die on the battlefield was the ultimate sacrifice to God and their reward would be entry into Heaven so in a fight, a Templar wouldn't back down. The rank and file were zealous in the pursuit of their religion and all that it entails- up to an including death to all unbelievers. My guess is, if you told a Templar that a Teuton was an unbeliever, that Teuton might be in trouble. ;)
-
Well im sure alot of them were death to non believers. But If someone wasnt there enemy. Say another crusader who is a non believer. He may just kick his arse. but idk if hed kill him.
-
Tuetonics also fight for god at all costs. The have won battles that were against greater foes.
-
Tuetonics also fight for god at all costs. The have won battles that were against greater foes.
Just like Templars ;)
Templars had specific rules demanding that they don't leave the field of battle unless outnumbered - I forget specifics but maybe 3 to 1? Also ordered that they don't leave unless the Templar banner has fallen. They are not to be taken prisoner, they are to retreat or die.
-
I consider the Templars as the first of the holy orders; so feared that the French King Philip le Bel concocted spurious charges in order to detain every Templar knight he could get to - just to avoid having to pay the Order back the funds he'd borrowed. Not that it did him any real good...he was dead within a year after burning the last Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, at the stake for heresy. De Molay is said to have cursed both the King and the Pope, and they both had died within a year.
The Tuesday after next will mark the 700th anniversary of de Molay's death.
-
who has more movies, documentaries and books written on them?
-
who has more movies, documentaries and books written on them?
Heh, I think Templars win that one by a landslide. :P
-
who has more movies, documentaries and books written on them?
Heh, I think Templars win that one by a landslide. :P
Maybe its time to change that. :)
-
Self-sacrifice is only as virtuous as the reason for why one gives up his own life. Virtue without any idea of what it means or why you defend it is as pointless as saying it & doing nothing. It must be reflected and perceived as such in practice and/or action.
-
Tuetonics also fight for god at all costs. The have won battles that were against greater foes.
Just like Templars ;)
Templars had specific rules demanding that they don't leave the field of battle unless outnumbered - I forget specifics but maybe 3 to 1? Also ordered that they don't leave unless the Templar banner has fallen. They are not to be taken prisoner, they are to retreat or die.
They also had tactics for winning battles when they were outnumbered.
Remember that little trick bailan does when him and his men at arms are outnumbered protecting the castle.
Templars had tactics like that. But they would also reform so around there banner and fight until ordered to leave.
Another thing they would do is spread there men out and sort of wrap around the enemy forces, enclosing them.
-
Templars had specific rules demanding that they don't leave the field of battle unless outnumbered - I forget specifics but maybe 3 to 1? Also ordered that they don't leave unless the Templar banner has fallen. They are not to be taken prisoner, they are to retreat or die.
Yes, 3-to-1 was the requirement before they were permitted to withdraw.
-
Nate, I wouldn't look to Kingdom of Heaven for examples of Templar cavalry tactics, especially since the double horseshoe move would've been ineffective against that many opposing horsemen, as it was in the movie. I'm assuming you're referring to Kerak, where he hoped to hold off the Muslims long enough for Jerusalem to arrive. He only survived that because Imad knew who he was beforehand. Remember, Balian slew his servant in the desert over a horse- Imad seemed confused when he translated that Balian was the baron of Ibelin (al'huakim Ibelin is the line); Balian could've taken him as a slave but he released him. Imad returned the favor at Kerak.
Much of the depiction of the sequence events at Reynald of Chatillon’s stronghold of Kerak is not true to history. Saladin did besiege Kerak unsuccessfully, but in 1183, well before the time frame of the movie. According to legend, there was a wedding going on during the Muslim bombardment of the walls. Saladin found out which tower the newlyweds were in, and instructed his soldiers not to bombard it. When King Baldwin IV brought his army down from Jerusalem to contest the siege, Saladin withdrew before they arrived. The desperate ploy by Balian and his men-at-arms never occurred during the siege of Kerak and was something of a rare event for that period in time. Muslim commanders tended to avoid such engagements as the heavily armored Western knights were feared for their devastating massed charges.
-
I just got Ninja'd by william.
Ya saladin was very merciful.
Did you know the scene were saladin cuts chatillons throat for drinking the water actually happened?
Wait did you read your second paragraph from something? Its almost word for word with something I read a while back.
Well I still think a Templar would win.
Say there both having a bad day. And they cross paths, and the Teutonic says "excuse me" rudely.... And the Templars says "thats it!" And etc.
-
I feel like this argument is begin to hit a wall.
But honestly on what has been said before so many factor go into 1 on 1 combat, we don't know.
-
If they were both to fight to the death I think it'd just end up being a 50/50 chance. Both had gear that were equal, both equally trained and both have witnessed and shared events together. One could say them the same, just one bares the red cross and the other the black. Both had about the same beliefs. A reason some may lean toward Templars is because they are more "popular".
-
If they were both to fight to the death I think it'd just end up being a 50/50 chance. Both had gear that were equal, both equally trained and both have witnessed and shared events together. One could say them the same, just one bares the red cross and the other the black. Both had about the same beliefs. A reason some may lean toward Templars is because they are more "popular".
No actually I wouldnt say they are equal in everything, its more than just a symbol that teutonics and Templars follow.
Its like Theres pizza, and them there is chicago style pizza. Both have cheese, sauce and crust/bread. Every pizza has different toppings. Chicago style may also only take 3 slices to fill a stomach while normal pizza takes a box.
Both are pizza, but both vary. A chicago pepperoni pizza may beat a normal slice of pizza with veggies.
Crusading groups are just like pizza.
-
You only say that because you never tasted the other pizza. Just to prove that you know only about templars and nothing of the teutonic order which brings you to support one group without the background knowledge of the other. All you see them as is a group of mercenaries.
-
Great, now I want pizza. :P Mmmmmm....warrior-monk pizza.
-
Chicago or Italian?
-
The Templars were around first. When the Teutonics were founded, they were based off of the Templars. If I remember right, Teutonics were also both subject to the Pope (Sir Nathan, can you confirm?) along with the Hospitalers too. So at any given time, their equipment and training was similar. Some kind of political differences, but similar. At their height, the Templars had a massive sphere of power and influence - as did the Teutonics - but at least a century or two apart.
I remember a mentioning that they fought together at the fall of Acre, but I don't remember any mention of them fighting each other. Most of my interest is Templar (I have maybe 1 or 2 Teutonic books, and 8 or 10 Templar books) ... I just absorb a bit of Teutonic here and there from Sir Nathan. :)
-
Italian of course; Chicago pizza is just nasty. lol
Nate, I have read that reference so many times I can almost recite it verbatim.
-
The Templars were around first. When the Teutonics were founded, they were based off of the Templars. If I remember right, Teutonics were also both subject to the Pope (Sir Nathan, can you confirm?) along with the Hospitalers too. So at any given time, their equipment and training was similar. Some kind of political differences, but similar. At their height, the Templars had a massive sphere of power and influence - as did the Teutonics - but at least a century or two apart.
I remember a mentioning that they fought together at the fall of Acre, but I don't remember any mention of them fighting each other. Most of my interest is Templar (I have maybe 1 or 2 Teutonic books, and 8 or 10 Templar books) ... I just absorb a bit of Teutonic here and there from Sir Nathan. :)
I haven't seen Sir Nathan on in a few days
I have about 3 Templar books. Ive read about 9.
-
poor Nathan's probably bogged down with midterms
I like how nobody even considered introducing the Hospitallers into the fight. They are sooo under-appreciated.
-
poor Nathan's probably bogged down with midterms
I like how nobody even considered introducing the Hospitallers into the fight. They are sooo under-appreciated.
They were mentioned, and they got more "maille" in one pinky then the templars and teutonics combined lol. But Hospitallers were more for defending hospitals I think then actually getting out there to fight, most of the time.
-
Initially yes, but their role shifted from hospital care, to armed pilgram escort, to a full-fledged fighting force (say that 10 times fast).The Hospitallers fought in a number of engagements, mostly serving militarily in and after the Second Crusade. They participated in the Battle of the Horns of Hattin and those who were captured were executed. They also participated in the Battles of Arsuf and Jerusalem. Additionally, they played a large role in the fifth and later crusades.
-
Well in kingdom of.....
No im just kidding,
And hospitallers may be up there, But ive always viewed it as Teutonics have the shortest of 3 straws.
-
But ive always viewed it as Teutonics have the shortest of 3 straws.
Yeah, it seems like they're one of the "Big Three" Crusading Orders among medievalists, but are often forgotten by more casual observers of the Crusades. The Baltic Crusades in general don't seem to be quite as "popular" an area of study as the Outremer ones.
And let's not forget about guys like the Orders of Santiago and Caltrava. They're often overlooked even among the medieval community.
-
Or the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, the Order of St. Lazarus, and the Order of Mt. Joy
-
Or the Order of the Marshal, oh wait never mind... Well me and my brother do not deny the other orders, its just the two largest one we were discussing.
-
Honestly, this is a silly argument. On a one-on-one scale like this, you are basically asking who would win between a fiercely religious and well-trained German knight and a fiercely religious and well-trained French knight. At the individual level, the only significant difference is their average nationalities. They would both wear state-of-the-art armour, be trained to the highest degree, and they were both warrior monks (with rules that are highly intertwined), so they would have the same level of religious commitment. The winner is going to be whoever is on their game in that day, or gets lucky, or God knows what else happens. It's pointless.
And to answer the basic questions I've seen here, the Teutonic Knights were founded at the siege of Acre in 1191, with a military function based on Templars, as a German branch of the Hospitallers. They became their own Order shortly afterwards, and led the crusades against pagans. They were subservient to both the Pope and the Emperor, but in practice they were highly autonomous.
On a larger scale you can compare the Templars and Teutonic Knights and actually make some conclusions there. For instance, two interesting facts are that the Templars actually have a loosing record for the large battles they have participated in, and the Teutonic Knights led the only successful crusade (all the while participating in the loosing crusade, which was ran by a certain different order). Read from that what you will.
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
Well the way I see it, we got a Templar and a Teutonic Knight here, care for some Harnesfechten? ;)
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
Well the way I see it, we got a Templar and a Teutonic Knight here, care for some Harnesfechten? ;)
Harnesfechten? Is that a combat word?
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
Well the way I see it, we got a Templar and a Teutonic Knight here, care for some Harnesfechten? ;)
I'll bring the popcorn and watch! ;D
Harnesfechten? Is that a combat word?
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
-
Harnes= harness
Fechten= fencing
Remember, the determination pf which orders warriors would win is pizza.
Templar pizza with sausageay taste better than a Teutonic pizza with sausage. But a Teutonic pizza with pepperoni is better than a Templar pizza with pepperoni.
-
Yes, literally "armor fencing". The term "fencing" is derived from "defense" (literally "defending"), and before it got associated with modern sport weapons, it originally referred to the martial arts, and the skill of survival.
-
Yes, literally "armor fencing". The term "fencing" is derived from "defense" (literally "defending"), and before it got associated with modern sport weapons, it originally referred to the martial arts, and the skill of survival.
I can't wait to learn it one day.
Hmm Perhaps some who are already trained could teach me some of the trade. Until I begin taking classes(until I have a job)
-
Lesson 1: Pointy end of sword towards enemy. Well...unless you're performing a mordschlag, I suppose.
-
Step. 2 You take the banana
Step. 3 you eat the banana! Thus disarming him.
Me thinks I should invent my own style. That would be a challenge.
-
Let the games... begin...
-
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
Quoted! What now? Time to throw down the gauntlet?? :D
-
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
Quoted! What now? Time to throw down the gauntlet?? :D
Throw down?? Hell no!! I'm gonna give somebody a major medieval beotch-slap in the bascinet. :) That's how we do it.
-
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
Quoted! What now? Time to throw down the gauntlet?? :D
Throw down?? Hell no!! I'm gonna give somebody a major medieval beotch-slap in the bascinet. :) That's how we do it.
Thy be about to release a large jar'eth of whoop arse
-
;D
The Simpsons - Snake - Would a coward do this... Bye! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Oe1jCy2Fc8#)
-
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
Quoted! What now? Time to throw down the gauntlet?? :D
Throw down?? Hell no!! I'm gonna give somebody a major medieval beotch-slap in the bascinet. :) That's how we do it.
Thy be about to release a large jar'eth of whoop arse
Sure it’s all fun and games until someone gets a mordschlag in the visor... :o ;)
-
It means something along the lines of "armored fighting". I believe it's specifically the term for a German school of armored combat, but don't quote me on that one.
Quoted! What now? Time to throw down the gauntlet?? :D
Throw down?? Hell no!! I'm gonna give somebody a major medieval beotch-slap in the bascinet. :) That's how we do it.
Thy be about to release a large jar'eth of whoop arse
Sure it’s all fun and games until someone gets a mordschlag in the visor... :o ;)
It left a dent in mine last year. True story. :o
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
Well the way I see it, we got a Templar and a Teutonic Knight here, care for some Harnesfechten? ;)
That would only prove that one particular Templar was better than one particular Teuton...or vice versa, in this case. ;)
-
Not really; the Templar would have won. That is all.
lol
Well the way I see it, we got a Templar and a Teutonic Knight here, care for some Harnesfechten? ;)
That would only prove that one particular Templar was better than one particular Teuton...or vice versa, in this case. ;)
There be the pizza formula. Or theory